I’ve been watching a different kind of PR crisis unfold with great interest – that of Skittles.
Skittles, you say? Taste the fruity rainbow, Skittles?
Yes, Skittles.
Because of the symbolism of the candy (Trayvon Martin was carrying only Skittles and a drink when he was shot), college student governments are buying it in bulk and reselling it to raise money for his family.
The candy has been piled into makeshift memorials, crammed into the pockets of thousands of people who have shown up at rallies in his name, and sent to the Sanford Police Department to protest the lack of an arrest in the case.
Sales are soaring for Skittles maker, Wrigley. But its new level of fame is quickly becoming a PR crisis that is threatening to hurt the company, more than it helps.
I know, I know. Sales are up. Everyone is talking about them. So what’s the problem?
According to the New York Times, people are calling for donations and giving back to communities where “murder based on stereotypes is a reoccurring theme.”
On social media sites like Twitter, people are suggesting that Wrigley is profiting greatly from the tragedy and should donate money made since Trayvon’s death to the family or causes that would help with racial reconciliation or underprivileged communities. Some African-Americans are even asking people to stop buying Skittles until the company gets more involved in the case and donates money.
So, just like we discussed yesterday where Etch A Sketch took advantage of a Romney senior aide’s gaffe and is selling more toys, Wrigley now has the opposite problem. Trayvon had Skittles in his pocket when he was killed and protestors are using the candy as a symbol for his death.
Clearly going the route of capitalizing on this opportunity is not the right thing to do. Is donating some of the increased profits the right thing to do? Is staying silent and watching it all unfold the right thing to do?
As communication professionals, we’re trained throughout our careers to deal with things such as someone dying from eating your product or someone being killed on the job. But this one? This one isn’t a case study you find very often, nor is it a scenario you typically include in your crisis management plan.
This is a crisis where “I”m sorry” doesn’t work. It’s a crisis where people on the social networks are telling you how to run your company. And, if you don’t donate money, you come off as the big, capitalist company, which could hurt you in the long-run.
Seemingly the “right” thing to do is donate money, but I’m not sure that’s the answer either.
What do you think?
I think it's horrible that groups are calling for them to donate anything. They're running a business. They had nothing to do with the incident. Period. We all have had business successes, many based on the tragedy of others (Competitor goes bankrupt, etc.) Once again people feel the need to take their anger out on the wrong entity. Donate some of your own money if you support these organizations. Don't try to bully/guilt an innocent bystander in this.
This comment has been deleted
This comment has been deleted
1 Like
@JMattHicks Seems like you know someone who can figure out how to let you edit your comment! :)
Wrigley, too, does a lot of community service. A LOT. But someone brought up a really good point. He said they aren't making extra money or extra profits because what's on the shelf is what's on the shelf. Now, if they run out of product they can either make more candy or not. There are pros and cons to both, of course, but they've reported their projections for the year and, unless the stores run out and they make more candy, it won't affect their share price.
That said, it's a very interesting case study on how our customers now demand how we run our businesses.
Latest blog post: Three Little-Known Ways to Use Pinterest to Promote Your Business
@dconconi to be honest I don't see how these two things are related. (I don't remember hearing about the Skittles connection in Cdn. media.)
@dconconi think this issue is incredibly serious in regards to "legalized" racism; simply don't see a huge connection to Skittles/marketing.
1 Like
SUPER touchy. So many different issues at play here. Race. Politics. Ethics. It's like one giant hornet's next waiting to be kicked. What really makes this interesting is that Wrigley, just like Etch-A-Sketch, had nothing to do with the situation.
The number one thing Wrigley has to do is to NOT seem like it is taking advantage of the situation. To that end, any donation with a loud announcement to ANY organization will come off as grandstanding. I personally like the idea of a donation to some kind of college scholarship foundation since that was in Trayvon's immediate plans; perhaps even working with the Martin family to establish a foundation in Trayvon's name. No matter what, Wrigley can't be the company to make the announcement. It has to be the beneficiary that takes the most spotlight for this. Accusations of greed or capitalizing on a tragedy could make dents in the company it would take a long time to recover from.
@MattLaCasse I like the idea of a scholarship fund. I think this would be a good approach and gesture no matter what the case. And if done carefully, this could help keep the company from getting immersed in the controversial issues of politics, race and ethics while still honoring the increase in sales due to this tragedy.
@rachaelseda @MattLaCasse I like this idea, too, but I'm still not convinced they have to do anything. We are, after all, in business to make money. Or maybe that's just the capitalist in me.
Latest blog post: Of Starbucks and Starcrossed Lovers
@ginidietrich @rachaelseda I'm not married to the idea that they HAVE to do something. However, getting increased sales because someone made a political gaffe is a little different than increased sales because a teenager got shot. I know they didn't ask for this, and did nothing to deserve it, but some small gesture certainly doesn't hurt them and turns a needless spotlight from them back to the community.
Working for a company that has grown thanks almost 100% to social media, I can say without a doubt, the right decision is to take some of the profits and do something good and charitable. Doesn't have to be a big hullabaloo, but make it visible to those who care.
Businesses today own only the quality of their products. Branding is in the hands of the masses. In the end, doing the "good thing" will lead to more customer good will, and possibly more sales.
@MattACook I agree doing the right thing seemingly is donating to the cause. But they also have to think about legal issues, where they can't comment on a murder case. So, if they do anything, they'll have to be very careful about when, how, and what they communicate, if at all.
Latest blog post: Augusta National Faces Scrutiny on "No Women" Rule
@ginidietrich This might be why they haven't done anything *yet.* Making a public comment now would through them even more into the spotlight of this case.
1 Like
@ginidietrich Absolutely correct. Sorry, it was late at night and I wrote that idea very quickly. Wrigley should definitely be careful to not make any statements on the murder case. But say, creating some sort of kids' program not directly related to the case. That could definitely help if the people clamoring for action take notice.
@Canadian88 wow super interesting! I hope someone does a case study on this and we can look at how it was handled! @elissapr @spinsucks
When this edition of Spin Sucks popped into my inbox I thought: that @ginidietrich - she does it again:brings to light a burgeoning issue and creates intelligent conversation around it.
There are some really great comments here. Where most companies are called on the carpet for a transgression, Wrigley is hearing the cries of 'do good'. I have no doubt they will...but I also hope it will be a sustainable legacy that supports the root of the issue vs a band-aid approach.
@ElissaFreeman Some of the comments here have suggested they call on their current CSR program to do some good. I have no doubt they will. It just makes me mad they may have to do it because activists are calling for it.
Latest blog post: Augusta National Faces Scrutiny on "No Women" Rule
For better or for worse, when social media screams, corporations are brought to their knees. How do we advise our clients/internal people when to respond and when not to (given the severity of the situation, of course)? As the corus of voices continues to grown in this medium, crisis comms will need to get better at addressing this.
1 Like
@ElissaFreeman @ginidietrich Much like it always has been, you can't let the mob dictate what the right thing is to do. All you can do is to ensure you are doing the morally, ethically, and correct thing. Just because someone is loud doesn't mean they're right.
That said, I do think Wrigley CAN make a donation and not come off looking like it is capitalizing on the publicity it has been receiving.
@ginidietrich re: Skittle. Is this your blog? Your social share bar keeps getting in the way of reading. It moves on the iPad.
@ginidietrich I know. I would like to change this soon. I will try to kidnap @rachaelseda and make a reunion happen.
@ginidietrich @megmroberts We're going to make it happen Meg. Lets plan a weekend! cc: @lisagerber
@ginidietrich @megmroberts YES! Seriously a weekend Chitown trip I've been warning @lisagerber that I'm going to crash her apartment!
It's definitely a challenging situation @ginidietrich -- I've read through most of the comments here and I tend to agree with you in principle. The capitalist in me is a firm believer of Adam Smith's thinking that a socially responsible company focuses on earning money (because the rest has to occur for that to happen in the long run: good products, value, service, etc.).
Yet on the other hand, I think Wrigley's is in a position where doing nothing is going to cause more problems. There's a ton of reporting on this incident and quite frankly, I don't think we have all the facts yet. Even so, I think Wrigley's would do well to find an organization they can work with. Something not directly related -- a big brother/big sister type organization -- is what I'm thinking, but there's probably a better choice too. More than simply throwing money at the problem, but encouraging employees to get involved. Maybe the CEO adopts a non-profit -- something along those lines.
I'd also recommend being a "quiet professional" about it. It's something you just do -- without a press release or a statement. Over time the word will get out about what they are doing and will alleviate any short-term concerns.
That said, Wrigley's is a large enough company, with such a legacy, I'm sure if we dug a little we'd find it's likely they probably already have some philanthropic programs. Nearly every CEO I've ever known has a few, and they are indeed quiet about it. Maybe that's a story that's coming as this controversy grows.
Latest blog post: Lessons from migrating from Blogger to WordPress
@Frank_Strong They have a pretty big CSR program. And I know they also donate product. Perhaps there is a combination of doing what you suggest with some of the things they already have in place. I'm very interested in what they do.
Latest blog post: Monetized Word-of-Mouth Business Models
@ginidietrich thanks for sharing Skittles PR story. Interesting to read comments, different POV
@lisavielee It's interesting that no one agrees in the comments. Imagine being in the board room!
@AmyVernon Thanks, Amy! Lived in Florida for three years in Florida as a teen (shudders). I wonder what the NRA is gonna do as a 'brand'!?
.@AmyVernon .@KOttavio .@ginidietrich Thanks for the link on the 'PR Crisis for Skittles' debate. I was glad to add my comment!
@karlgibson This made me LOL: 'What are the makers of Skittles going to do with this sales blitz!?'
@ginidietrich Ha! Well we know someone will probably ask sooner or later. I really enjoyed your piece & participating today.
@karlgibson I really enjoyed your comments. We should find a topic we disagree on and debate it via a blog post. I like your brain.
1 Like
I think that most people following this story are much more concerned with the public safety of our country's youth and whether the shooter in the Martin murder will be arrested. I can honestly say that between social media, my own news org I'm at, people on the street, comment boards- I have not heard one person ask 'What are the makers of Skittles going to do with this sales blitz!?'
Whatever Wrigley does, it should be private and discussed with their counsel first. Like any corporation, they can fund any charitable initiatives, scholarships or programs that they choose if they choose to.
Part of what made this such a huge global sadness is commonality: human beings of all races and ages like Skittles candy. Wrigley needn't politicize or kowtow to anyone right now, especially in the wake of such raw emotion and worldwide momentum. If Wrigley opts to use or earmark any portion of their surging non-forecast profits to *any* public works then they'll look amazing. But for anyone to take a stand and demand that Wrigley earmark profits would be an insipid move. The consumer has the choice whether to buy any product and I don't think Wrigley's profits are the crux of this case.
As for the NYT snippet up there, as a former employee of the NYT Group, I'd say the assertion that "some African-Americans" are calling for a moratorium on Skittles sales is laughably overblown. "Some" - I'd like to know how many? I'm sure it's a miniscule number and shouldn't be used to obfuscate the human connection behind the tragedy of this unfolding case . Skittles didn't shoot an unarmed minor and on that we all can agree.
2 Like
@karlgibson You're very right. And I agree it's ridiculous this is even a topic of conversation. But I am fascinated by the turn of events that has pulled an innocent company into the conversation. As a communication pro, it's difficult to separate my personal feelings (which mirror what you've said) with what they should do professionally.
Latest blog post: Monetized Word-of-Mouth Business Models
@ginidietrich I agree with you also and I think it's definitely something that anyone in a public profession or working for a corporation has to consider. It's a huge 'what would you do?' question. I read all of the comments here and there's so much to draw on. I tried to think of other unplanned PR blitzes of the past (i.e. Three Mile Island coinciding with Columbia Pictures' "The China Syndrome" in 1979).. Amazing to think of the solidarity and emotion youth have with Skittles for now beyond anything related to candy.
@karlgibson And the re-release of Titanic when the Costa Concordia sank. Not the same level as Three Mile Island, but we're surrounded with the unexpected.
Latest blog post: Monetized Word-of-Mouth Business Models
@LeanneHeller no no no no no you're just helping them capitalize - those greedy corporate bastids!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Pinterest
Google+
LinkedIn
[...] is in the early stages of a PR crisis of a very unique nature. Both the New York Times and the blog Spin Sucks have provided coverage on the issue. According to the New York Times, “Trayvon Martin, the [...]
[...] read with interest Gini Dietrich’s post yesterday about how Skittles is finding themselves in a bit of a PR crisis because of the Trayvon Martin case. And through no fault of their own. There is a great discussion [...]
[...] PR Crisis for Skittles In Wake of Controversial Teen Shooting [...]
[...] PR Crisis for Skittles In Wake of Controversial Teen Shooting – This is a very smart post on a complicated issue from my good friend Gini. If you are in PR, like to be part of an angry mob, or like to educate yourself on how to write an awesome post on a polarizing issue, read this post. [...]
[...] of social injustice. Yet, the call for Mars, Inc. to donate proceeds from accelerated sales of Skittles spurred by the Trayvon Martin case falls into the “this is what we think you should do so do it” [...]